Highlands board continues hearing on C Street ferry and Sandbox Beach Bar plan amid parking, lighting and flood concerns

Brad Thompson, director of land development at Jerrin Associates, told the Highlands Planning Board on June 23 that the applicant has redesigned a previously reviewed plan for the C Street ferry terminal and the Sandbox Beach Bar to remove mechanical car lifts, add 70 at‑grade valet stalls, and reconfigure circulation while keeping the seasonal beach venue and ferry operations in place.

Thompson was sworn and described the principal changes: 734 spaces on the primary site plus 221 in an annex for a total of 955 spaces, down from an ordinance‑based requirement the applicant cited as 1,863. He said the redesign increases circulation efficiency, preserves an island and adds a five‑foot ADA sidewalk along the eastern property line required by the DEP tamper permit that the applicant said it already holds.

The board and residents pressed the applicant on several technical and neighborhood impacts. Thompson acknowledged the project requests multiple variances — including a dual primary‑use variance to allow a commercial beach venue and ferry terminal to operate on the same site, parking setback relief, narrower stall widths (8.5 feet vs. the 9‑foot standard), and a lighting variance for the eastern property line. "There's 30 poles out there. They're all 15 feet high," Thompson said, and described the plan's photometrics, noting a single brighter spot of 1.3 foot‑candles at the driveway entrance where the applicant is seeking relief from the ordinance standard of 0.3 foot‑candles.

Flooding and stormwater dominated board and public scrutiny. Thompson presented his team's hydraulic modeling for current and future storm scenarios and said the site is functionally underwater in a 100‑year event. He reported modest modeled reductions in peak discharge to Shore Drive after the proposed work (for the future 2‑year storm, 14.92 CFS existing to 14.84 CFS proposed) and explained why routing large new outfalls to the bay or relying on tide‑flex/check valves could cause higher on‑site water levels. "I looked at this hard because it's kinda counterintuitive," Thompson said of the outfall analysis, later adding, "I don't think you wanna make that connection out to the bay." Board members asked whether a pump station would be feasible; Thompson said pump stations are expensive, require elevation and reliable power and have limited utility in very large storms.

Residents urged stronger mitigation and monitoring. Jerry Surgis, a nearby homeowner, questioned the proposed drainage strategy and advised the board to consider larger pipes or pump options; Elroy Darden, who lives adjacent to the proposed valet area, asked the applicant to add a privacy fence to reduce noise and light for neighboring properties. Cindy Ziff, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, told the board she had limited time to review the latest materials and signaled intent to submit more detailed comment at the next session.

The applicant also agreed to produce further material the board requested: updated traffic counts and valet logistics from a traffic expert, a revised stormwater management report matching the most recent plans, a lighting refinement that could include dimming schedules and additional shielding, and a clearer striping/maintenance plan for the gravel overflow lot. Thompson affirmed that the applicant will provide additional plan details (dumpster locations, turning templates for service vehicles, and revised landscape buffering) and said the DEP has already reviewed and approved certain stormwater elements of the submission.

The board did not take any votes. After questions from members, the board carried the application to a continuation hearing set for July 29 at 7:00 p.m. so the applicant can return with additional traffic, stormwater and plan revisions and the public can have a full opportunity for testimony.

What happens next: the applicant will provide the traffic engineer's report, updated stormwater figures and refined lighting and landscaping plans. The board indicated it may make maintenance and monitoring commitments — for example, periodic gravel re‑striping and inspection — part of any approval.

Details and numbers cited by participants: applicant‑provided parking counts total 955 (734 primary + 221 annex); applicant stated prior approvals or past plans referenced higher figures the applicant called unrealistic for current ridership; the applicant reported peak sandbox occupancy of up to 1,500 patrons during peak summer days; proposed lighting along the eastern property line was described as averaging 0.7 foot‑candles with a single entrance hotspot at 1.3 foot‑candles; the applicant modeled 2‑, 10‑ and 100‑year storms (current and future) and reported small reductions in modeled outfall flows after the proposed work.